Media Partisanship -- the Importance of Carter's October Surprise
I am really surprised that the Power Line guys haven't made a direct comparison of Jimmy Carter's treasonous offer to the Soviets to try to win the 1980 election with the false charges of October Surprise against George Bush and Ronald Reagan for that same election. Years later, the MSM went crazy over the charges against Bush. So far, the MSM has ignored the Carter revelations which have the added strength which comes from being documented in Soviet records. I am also shocked that the rest of the big bloggers have ignored the story. In my view, this ought to be one of the most important stories of the year.
The active, purposeful liberal partisanship of many organizations in the MSM does tremendous damage. People who are commited to fostering honest journalism need to join the fight when an opportunity like this presents itself. Rathergate was unusual, not because it was a hit directed at the GOP, but because the journalists involved were extraordinarily clumsy and stupid. Ordinarily, proving conclusively that coverage has been partisan is difficult, because history rarely provides us with parallel stories to compare.
The SwiftVets and the Bush National Guard (non-story) provided an outstanding comparison for demonstrating the blatant partisanship of the MSM. Evan Thomas had predicted that they would try hard to elect Kerry and the different coverage of these two stories confirmed that. Because the stories so closely parallel each other, they are ideal for comparison. It is impossible for anyone to review the solid evidence supporting some of the SwiftVet claims about Kerry, the complete lack of evidence supporting the allegations against Bush, and the stark difference in coverage by the MSM, without concluding that the MSM was actively partisan in its coverage. I don't mean biased. I mean actively, knowingly, partisan. Because there is no honest way the MSM can try to distinguish why the false story was so newsworthy and the true story was not. They wanted Kerry to win. They wanted Bush to lose. So they purposefully presented their "news" coverage accordingly. No one can maintain credibility and argue otherwise.
Which brings us to Carter and his efforts to conspire with the Soviets to sell out American interests in return for an electoral victory. This is EXACTLY the kind of October surprise that the MSM screamed was so outrageous when they went after Bush. Once again, the claims against Bush (then it was his father) were false. And to make the comparison even more perfect, both stories concern the 1980 election and both stories broke years and years after the fact.
We've already seen how the MSM covered the false allegations of October Surprise against George H. W. Bush. Any bloggers or honest MSM journalists interested in reforming the blatantly partisan slant of the press should be all over the coverage (or lack thereof) of Jimmy Carter's perfidy.
Where are the voices of those who say they want better journalism?
The active, purposeful liberal partisanship of many organizations in the MSM does tremendous damage. People who are commited to fostering honest journalism need to join the fight when an opportunity like this presents itself. Rathergate was unusual, not because it was a hit directed at the GOP, but because the journalists involved were extraordinarily clumsy and stupid. Ordinarily, proving conclusively that coverage has been partisan is difficult, because history rarely provides us with parallel stories to compare.
The SwiftVets and the Bush National Guard (non-story) provided an outstanding comparison for demonstrating the blatant partisanship of the MSM. Evan Thomas had predicted that they would try hard to elect Kerry and the different coverage of these two stories confirmed that. Because the stories so closely parallel each other, they are ideal for comparison. It is impossible for anyone to review the solid evidence supporting some of the SwiftVet claims about Kerry, the complete lack of evidence supporting the allegations against Bush, and the stark difference in coverage by the MSM, without concluding that the MSM was actively partisan in its coverage. I don't mean biased. I mean actively, knowingly, partisan. Because there is no honest way the MSM can try to distinguish why the false story was so newsworthy and the true story was not. They wanted Kerry to win. They wanted Bush to lose. So they purposefully presented their "news" coverage accordingly. No one can maintain credibility and argue otherwise.
Which brings us to Carter and his efforts to conspire with the Soviets to sell out American interests in return for an electoral victory. This is EXACTLY the kind of October surprise that the MSM screamed was so outrageous when they went after Bush. Once again, the claims against Bush (then it was his father) were false. And to make the comparison even more perfect, both stories concern the 1980 election and both stories broke years and years after the fact.
We've already seen how the MSM covered the false allegations of October Surprise against George H. W. Bush. Any bloggers or honest MSM journalists interested in reforming the blatantly partisan slant of the press should be all over the coverage (or lack thereof) of Jimmy Carter's perfidy.
Where are the voices of those who say they want better journalism?
posted by Stan at 5:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home